Magic-League.com Forum Index Magic-League.com
Forums of Magic-League: Free Online tcg playing; casual or tournament play.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

GU Heavy Aggro -Standard-



 
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Casual or Other Decks
Author Message
kaamos



Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 320

PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:03 am    Post subject: GU Heavy Aggro -Standard- Reply with quote

// Deck file for Magic Workstation (http://www.magicworkstation.com)

// Lands
4 [ZEN] Misty Rainforest
10 [M10] Island (1)
10 [M10] Forest (1)

// Creatures
4 [ZEN] Rampaging Baloths
4 [ZEN] Sphinx of Lost Truths
4 [ZEN] Sphinx of Jwar Isle
4 [ZEN] Mold Shambler
4 [M10] Acidic Slime

// Spells
4 [ZEN] Ior Ruin Expedition
4 [ZEN] Harrow
4 [ZEN] Khalni Heart Expedition
4 [ZEN] Into the Roil

// Sideboard
SB: 4 [ZEN] Oran-Rief Recluse
SB: 4 [M10] Flashfreeze
SB: 4 [ZEN] Roil Elemental
SB: 3 [CFX] Telemin Performance


Tried to make Harrow/Expedition as usefull as possible, this is what I got.

Ramps into expensive cards, Shambler/Slime are non creature removal, along with roil.

Ior/lost Truths = card advantage

Baloths/Jwar Sphinx = win condition creatures.

SB:
Recluse = Baneslayer removal
Flashfreeze/Roil Elemental= Jund, creatures
Telemine Performance = anti mill, anti creatureless control, matches baneslayer vs baneslayer...


Its a simple concept.
Back to top
Tao



Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 864

PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You should really stop trying to find a format defining deck. I read these forums like every day, and every day I see a stupider deck design by you.
Back to top
kaamos



Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 320

PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

why dont you call the "WHAAAAAMBULANCE!"
Back to top
kaamos



Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 320

PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey, Lloyde!

You read these forums every day, but its your first post!

Wow.
Back to top
Lynolf



Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 546

PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GG Mr. Green
Back to top
Tao



Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 864

PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OH NO DID SOMEONE HURT KAAMOS' FEELINGS??



About time.
Back to top
TaKK



Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Best use of the first two posts ever.
Back to top
kaamos



Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 320

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not really, i generally dont argue or debate anything irl either.
I think "defending" my posts from everyones critique is a dumb idea,
I expect them to give the thumbs down on anthing that is not already aa tier 1 deck.
=he fact of the matter is, most of them, not all- cant calculate odds of draw.
Most of my decks try to make something/s usefull, so i try to invent a tech.

And everyone flamed my "flood" decks, but not the "spread'em" tech @ worlds.
Back to top
kaamos



Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 320

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also you might wanna bother me in the -Standard Forums- where the seriousness of a deck matters, because this is the Casual-other decks forum.














:p
Back to top
Tao



Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 864

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Everyone flamed your Flood decks because you played a bunch of bounce and mana denial enchantments. Spread 'Em cascades into them, has good control options, and has a board that makes certain aggro matchups unbeatable. Spread Em may have used a few of the cards you played, but it is miles ahead of your Flood garbage
Back to top
OldBear



Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1840

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I do not think there is anything wrong with what your trying to do. Your problem is your posting your ideas at far to a preliminary stage.

Its okay to have loads of ideas even if most of them are shit you only need one to be good but spare us all the garbage please and actually only post decks that you have tested a good amount and are atleast showing some potential.

There is no way your testing all these decks enough to be post them, I mean every time I go afk for a poo I come back and you've posted a new deck. Its starting to annoy people as it does just make the forum look really bad.
Back to top
Thanik



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 101

PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jonproject wrote:
Everyone flamed your Flood decks because you played a bunch of bounce and mana denial enchantments. Spread 'Em cascades into them, has good control options, and has a board that makes certain aggro matchups unbeatable. Spread Em may have used a few of the cards you played, but it is miles ahead of your Flood garbage


Actually, people flamed it either because they don't like him, or can't see a good idea when it's jammed into their face. There's no other reason to totally shit on a deck that has strong elements within it, without at least acknowledging those elements.

Continuing to flame him in the -casual- section shows which one it is btw. I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but might as well be honest hey.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Casual or Other Decks All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

All content on this page may not be reproduced without consent of Magic-League Directors.
Magic the Gathering is TM and copyright Wizards of the Coast, Inc, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. All rights reserved.


About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy